"HONEST MISTAKE"?

NROTC ^ | 9/20/04 | Jonathan H. Adler

[swilhelm73]

Dan Rather said "if I knew then what I know now," he would not have aired the documents. This is unbelievably disingenuous. CBS News knew document experts had serious concerns about their reliability. CBS News knew about the Killian family's doubts and was provided names of people who served with Killian who could have confirmed their suspicions. If people in their pajams could rip the memos to shreds in a matter of days, if not hours, CBS News could have vetted them more thoroughly.

The claim that the Bush Administration's non-denial was grounds is also ludicrous. The documents were not in Bush's official file and were written by third parties, so there was no way for the administration to know whether Killian had written or believed what the documents contained, especially on only a few hours' notice.

[big bad easter bunny]

If Dan knew those damn bloggers were going to nail him he would have never tried this type of fraud! Fraud=Main Stream Media

[Argus]

With the benefit of hindsight, Rather would have made sure that the forgeries were more skillful and harder to detect. But he's getting sloppy in his old age.

[boomop1]

SomeonepPut up the BS alarm.

[Grig]

A larger version can be downloaded here.

Download, print, add your own comments and send to Ra^ther.

[CurlyDave]

The claim that the Bush Administration's non-denial was grounds is also ludicrous.

All that needs to be said here is that the White House is not the research arm of CBS.

[dc-zoo]

The story was a cBS "no holds barred" political hack job from day one. Nothing is honest about that. This is coming back to bite cBS and the kerry campaign bigtime when we get "the rest of the story".

[christie]

If Dan knew those damn bloggers were going to nail him, he never would have posted the pdf files on the internet.

Of course, the next forger will have learned to not use a computer.

Frankly, unless a doc comes stamped from the National Archive or FBI or something, no documents can be thought reliable any more. With a scanner and photoshop, you can just about create any doc you want. You can create fake pictures, etc..

So Dan should not have relied on the docs in the first place unless they were originals. Period.

[Nosterrex]

Rather's apology is about as weak as you can get. First of all, no disrespect to all the bloggers, those documents were so obviously fakes that a blind man could see it. Is CBS that incompetent or biased that it can't see it?

Rather and CBS are still saying that the information is correct, but we just can't prove it. We BELIEVE the accusation are accurate. What sort of journalistic standard is that? Isn't that an admission of bias when someone believes something although there is no proof to support it?

[sevry]

I agree. Dan plays everyone for fools, maybe because he's simply a fool himself. But they are going to stall, perhaps, with a review and by distancing themselves from whatever Rather has to say now. I put this on my site, and wonder if anyone thinks CBS really couldn't admit so much BEFORE the report is delivered? I hope again they aren't just attempting a stall tactic. Because this will continue to be a big story for the next six weeks if they try that. And I do think they should have phrased it this way:

This isn't what they wrote. And Rather can spin around all he likes. But the execs at CBS should have written:

"We at CBS now believe that the documents used to support a 60 Minutes II story putatively about the President's record while serving in the Texas Air National Guard were fradulent. The admitted source of the documents has been revealed to have had a long history of personal animus towards now President George Bush, and is no longer considered reliable. CBS can no longer vouch for the authenticity of these documents. And that must be the standard for journalism, not that others are required to refute a story by proving the negative. That the staff of 60 Minutes II ignored warnings from its own uncertified experts, misrepresented themselves to others who were then said to be witnesses or approved of the story, ignored the objections of the author's own wife and son, and otherwise proceeded in a manner suggesting journalistic bad faith on their part, these and other questions will be address by an independent investigation just commissioned by CBS management.

This entire incident was a mistake, which we deeply regret. Nothing is more important to us than our credibility and keeping faith with the millions of people who count on us for fair, accurate, reliable, and independent reporting. We will continue to work tirelessly to be worthy of that trust.”

Now that's what they should have written. But they did not.

[Vinnie]

"if I knew then what I know now," he would not have aired the documents.

Following the dims logic,( a la Pres. Bush and the WMDs)

Ra^ther Lied

[Vigilanteman]

Not sorry for what he did, just sorry he got caught.

He should've said "I never would've aired the documents had I known it would've been detected before the election-- or at least long enough to have its desired effect."

[sgtbono2002]

Dan Rather=Lying sack of Doo-Doo

[TeaDumper]

Not just Rather but George Step-on-all-of us. Once they knew the story was a fake, every democrat-turned-journalist started floating the DNC's fall-back strategy that the Republicans had done it in order to sabotage the news media. Now I submit that George Step-on-all-of-us KNEW that no campaign official would knowlingly plant a story that would produce a damaging headline like "Bush was AWOL" because the later correction (if any - see Dan's pathetic mea culpa) would never get the same level of media play as the damaging headline. Ergo George Step-on-all-of-us KNEW his suggestion was a LIE.

[Logical me]

Does it really matter if he knew it the documents were true or not, he was hitting President Bush. What kind of a fool does he think we are. He is a liberal hit man. He is threw, and ABC better wake up.